A Question From a Comment

In a recent comment Courtney suests that there should be a "licence to parent."

Accordin to Janice Turner:

You need a licence to drive a car, serve liquor, o on a deer hunt, heck, you need a licence to call yourself a barber.

Why not to raise a child?

Why is it that society demands so very little of prospective parents?& That's what two Nova Scotia academics want to know. They suest would-be moms and dads be  required to et a ``parentin'' licence. Their idea has attracted much attention, not all of it flatterin. They call the concept pro-active. Some call the idea elitist and authoritarian.

Do you aree that a parentin licence should be required or is that idea elitist and authoritarian?

Comments

[kenju]

In an ideal world, it is a good idea. But it is impossible to ensure licensure before becoming a parent and impossible to get everyone to take the classes and pass them. The best we could do is teach parenting in school and hope that the lessons are learned and remembered.

[Peaches]

I don't know about a license...but maybe required parenting classes? All the stuff you see these days...Kindergartners taking guns to school, 2nd graders shooting up classmates with dirty needles and telling them to "get ready to die." It's all gotten WAY out of hand due, in my opinion, to busy parents with either absent or permissive attitudes toward their kids.

[mg]

oh my goodness. they should take it a step further and make a license to BREED in the first place!!! Can you imagine how much pain we'd all be spared if they had halted KFed and Brit?????

[Mamacita]

Mandating a license to parent would not be enforceable, as it often seems that those least competent at it have the most kids. But I do wish it was easier to remove children from bad homes. And I wish children were never returned to those same homes. Ever. And I really don't much care what kind of promises bad parents make; I don't believe anything they say.

[Jennie]

In my opinion, a parenting license is another piece of legislation that doesn't address the source of the problem, but satisfies those people who want to decide what's good for everybody else.

Parenting is not something people learn from books or school, parenting is something people learn from being parented. If children were allowed more time with families with their parents *parenting* them, they'd learn how to be parents. We can't send our kids to daycare as babies and school every day of their lives, and expect them to learn how to parent. Teachers don't parent, they teach. Day care workers don't parent really, especially in larger groups.

One thing I see with homeschooling kids that always touches me and strikes me as so unusual is that the children naturally take care of the other children in the home and in group situations. Older ones care for younger ones - they seem to enjoy the opportunity, they easily cross "grade" barriers you see in school kids who are used to traveling in graded sections, staying with their own. I assume it's natural for the homeschooled kid to nurture the other because they are being parented all day, so they learn it and use it even before they are parents.

Often my 9 year old dresses my 4 year old without being asked...sometimes my 14 year old comforts my 9 year old or includes him when he doesn't have a friend over and is lonely...when 4 year old is frustrated or upset, the older ones connect with him and see what they can do...they care for each other deeply because they've seen their parents care for them deeply all day long every day of their lives. That is how we teach parenting, by parenting the next generation of parents.

Being a parent can't be likened to driving a car, it is an instinct that needs to be nurtured, a need that needs to be fulfilled in order to turn around and fulfill that need in another. A person can't give what he doesn't have even if he goes to night school to get a license, learning about what he *should* have and *should* give. It just doesn't work that way. Sorry so long, I am passionate about the subject!

[annie]

I think it's a great idea!
While there at it, they should require a license for some people to be outside of their home unsupervised, or not on a leash.

[Phil]

In concept, it's somewhat appealing. But the reality is it's completely idiotic. The biggest problem it creates is what happens if someone has a child without first getting the license? Is the mother forced to have an abortion? I think that's one thing that most of the Pro-Life & Pro-Choice folks would agree on--forced abortion is absolutely out of the question. So is the child then taken away and put into the already over-crowded foster care system? Are the parents jailed, or fined, thus further hindering their ability to care for the child? It just doesn't make sense.

[annie]

*They're*

[Raehan]

It's authoritarian....however...it would be nice if child-development courses with suggestions on how to parent were a part of everyone's high school curriculum.

[plumkrazzee]

I'm with Mamacita on this one. (as usual) Anyone should be allowed their basic right to pro-create. ONCE. If you, however, screw up...abuse, mistreat, neglect, or have your children removed from your care....you should be required to gain a license to get them back. Any further children you have should be immediately taken from you at birth (because you've proven already that you are a loser) until you have proven that you can care for them. It is way, way, way too easy to fall throught the cracks and continue to produce children that you have no desire to 'parent'. Deal with that and you can fix the problem.

[anniebird]

I think a parenting license is a train wreck of an idea: who decides what criteria must be met before a license is granted? Phil has listed some other thorny aspects of such an undertaking - and I'm quite sure there are scores more.

We live in a dark, terribly flawed world, and unfortunately, we can't legislate evil behavior out of existence. I think we can really only resist evil through our relationships with each other, our sense of responsibility for each other, and by the use of shame....it's unacceptable to behave in certain ways, and those who engage in some behaviors should find no apologists willing to explain or excuse their behavior

[Keb]

As Phil mentions, there are far too many variables. On paper it looks great. Remember back in the day when people with mental handicaps were steralized so the would never have children of their own? Do we want to return to that?

I would suggest that people, during pregnancy, be required to take some basic class on how to care for a child (food, bath, comfort, etc). It wouldn't hurt and provides a good foundation. Often times, bad parents aren't only not taking care of the children, then don't take care of themselves either.

[PHAT Mommy]

Kenju says "In an ideal world, it's a good idea." Whoa! What kind of ideal world is this? The kind where the government controls everything - right down to our right to bear children??? I think it's a ridiculous idea. But I also think needing a license to drive a car, hunt, serve alcohol, or cut hair is ridiculous. I think people in this world would be FAR MORE RESPONSIBLE if they did not have "licenses" to fall back on. If a person sucks at cutting hair, they wouldn't have a job for long. If you do something to hurt someone, you will pay the consequence (fines, jail, etc).

[Stacey]

It's not practical to license parenting. In the cases of driving, serving alcohol, cutting hair, etc., there are clear rules and protocol to follow. Parenting, however, can be diverse, there's no "right" way to do it. It would be nice if child protection laws were tightened up and enforced better, however. It would be nice if parenting classes could be mandatory, but even if they were, there are no guarantees that people would use what they learn. Sadly, there is no cut and dry answer to the dilemma of bad parenting/abused children.

[Becky (formerly of April Fool)]

I think that was first pointed out in the movie Parenthood, and I couldn't help but see the logic in it. However, I do think that's in direct conflict with the idea of democracy and personal freedom, so I don't agree with it.

[Courtney]

I truly believe you should be able to raise any child you choose to bring into this world. If you can't, don't. End of story.

[jg]

mamacita and plumkrazzee have my vote on how to handle it!

[Paula]

E&A. But why not have a couple required high school classes? Of course then people would just argue over the content as they do sex ed. *sigh*

[barbie2be]

absolutely.

[Shannin]

I don't have children so I didn't feel qualified to answer this question. However, after seeing an article on msnbc.com about a mother who accepted $600 as hush money while her neighbor sexually molested her 7 year old son, I have to believe that some people should be licensed before having offspring.

[Dorkette]

I like the idea, but I know that this is something that could never be enforced... what would happen when "unlicensed" people did have kids (you know they would)? What would be the qualifications for getting licensed? What would happen to those who did not qualify, would they be sterilized or?

Hey, in my perfect world I'd say yes. But in this world it will never happen.

[Goldie]

Bad idea... who's the govt. to decide whether I can parent my children or not? Plus with all different parenting techniques out there, it's so easy to label someone that parents differently as "unfit to parent". I've seen numerous discussions on hot issues like antibiotics, vaxing, homeschooling, cosleeping, extended bf'ing etc etc... and I've seen EACH side of the argument suggest to the OTHER side that they are unfit to parent and need their children removed from them and placed in foster homes! What's going to happen is, we'll have a bureaucratic machine trying to decide whether a person can have children or not, based on how mainstream their parenting techniques are... And, sure enough, as any bureaucratic machine, it will malfunction on a regular basis and ban someone from having kids for no good reason. I say let's leave the govt. to do what it's good at, like collecting taxes and fighting crime... and keep it out of people's personal lives.

[sandy]

Ah, no. Here's the problem with it - outside of some very obvious absolutes, parenting is not a one-size fits all job. I'm curious as to what winds up on the test for such a licence. Who decides what deems acceptable, "passing" parenting styles and who does not. What happens if we fail? What happens if we fumble some important moment with our toddler?

Clearly there are just outright bad parents. My concern is that the rest of us (and I do mean ALL of us) fall into a giant grey space. TO think that one person or small group gets to start defining and eliminating the grey shades is downright scary.

[Samantha]

I think the real answer is to put competent people in positions of power, such as police officers and Child Protective Service agents. These agencies are absolutely mandatory, but they are filled with corruption. We have personally dealt with a cop refusing to help us when someone threatened to kidnap my step-daughter because my husband was convicted of a felony 20 years ago. We have also personally dealt with CPS threatening to take away the kids because we practice an alternative religion, even though the girls go to church with their biological mother.

If the system worked, if we lived in this "perfect world" that people are speaking of, we wouldn't have to worry about people raising children who are unfit to parent.

[Julie]

Considering I work with children and parents in some form every day...I see a lot of parents that I think would have failed that test.
I don't really think it is feasible, do you? Too many questions really as well. What would happen if a couple "broke the law"? And...so many more thoughts fill my mind that I MUST stop now! :o)

[LilRed]

I think it should absolutely be required.

[Shadowlands]

That's just what we need - more laws. We need to legislate every aspect of our lives to protect ourselves from ourselves. Next thing you know there'll be a law penalizing you for not brushing your teeth - you laugh, but when I was a kid absolutely no one believed that there would ever be a law requiring you to wear seatbelts. And I'm not that old - I was only born in 1965. And in twenty years you'll probably have to wear a helmet and a protective suit in your car as well. I think this is devolution . . .

[Steve Wallace]

The prisons are filled with children of unfit parents.

Here's the simple solution that will greatly reduce crime, abortions and welfare recipients.

In this day of medical technology, I know this is possible.

At birth, all females are implanted with some sort of a birth control device.

Then, at a certain age, we'll say not less than 21, providing the prospective parent can prove:
1) That they have a viable means of financial support.
2) They can provide adequate housing.
3) They are free of drugs

Then, and only then,does the control device come out.

Is that too much to ask, for someone to prove that they are willing and able to assume the most awesome responsibility they will ever encounter?
In a matter of 25-50 years, crime is down, abortion is almost non existent, the work force (and people in general) are more educated and productive...the benefits go on...

BUT this will never happen as the Religious Right will argue of people's God Given right to breed.
But there it is, one simple two minute procedure, and many of the country's woes are solved.

[Jessica]

Yes. Parents should be required to have a license to raise thier kids. You need one for everything else in life, what would the big deal be to get one when it is your own offspring at risk? YOUR KIDS should have the same care and attention as your license to drive or fish. Honestly. Is it really that big of a deal? You didnt complain when you were asked to pass a test for cutting someone else's hair!